Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife must be given paramount consideration while deciding a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed that where a wife lacks independent income and is dependent on her parents, the economic and logistical burden of travelling to a distant court warrants the transfer of proceedings to a location convenient to her.

The petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 24 CPC seeking the transfer of a Hindu Marriage Original Petition (HMOP) filed by her husband from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur, to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal. The wife, who resides with her parents in Nandyal, cited the distance of 100 kilometers and her lack of financial independence as grounds for the transfer, noting that she already had a maintenance petition and criminal proceedings pending against the husband in Nandyal. The husband opposed the transfer, alleging financial hardship and expressing apprehension regarding his personal safety when visiting Nandyal for court proceedings.

The primary question before the court was whether the H.M.O.P. No. 42 of 2026 should be transferred to Nandyal in the interest of justice. The court also addressed the husband's contention regarding his alleged inability to travel due to financial constraints and security concerns. Furthermore, the court examined the scope of utilizing virtual conferencing to mitigate the hardship faced by the husband.

Convenience of the Wife as a Cardinal Principle

The Court reaffirmed the principle that in matrimonial transfer matters, the financial status and social circumstances of the parties are crucial. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the bench emphasized that courts must weigh the economic soundness and the protective environment of the spouses. Since the wife demonstrated her dependency and lack of resources, the court found the request for transfer to be well-founded.

Court Rejects Unsupported Claims of Security Threats

The Court observed that while the respondent alleged life threats from the petitioner’s family in Nandyal, he failed to provide any documentary evidence or specific details of such incidents. The bench noted that the respondent had been attending court proceedings in Nandyal despite these claims, rendering the assertion a mere "sweeping statement" that did not outweigh the procedural convenience of consolidating the litigation.

Consolidation of Proceedings Promotes Judicial Economy

The court highlighted that the pendency of multiple cases—specifically maintenance and criminal proceedings—at Nandyal made it logical to transfer the divorce petition to the same jurisdiction. By consolidating these matters, the court observed that it would avoid unnecessary travel for both parties and prevent the risk of conflicting findings.

Utilizing Virtual Conferencing to Mitigate Hardship

The Court addressed the husband’s concerns regarding frequent travel by directing the transferee court to exercise discretion in requiring his physical presence. Invoking the precedent set in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nigam, the judge noted that technological advancements like video conferencing should be leveraged to reduce the hardship for litigants in matrimonial cases.

"The transferee court may look into the possibilities of taking the appearance of the respondent through virtual mode, following the guidelines laid by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh."

The High Court ultimately allowed the petition, directing the transfer of the HMOP to Nandyal. To ensure the respondent’s rights were protected, the court issued specific instructions that his presence should not be insisted upon for every adjournment, provided he is represented by counsel, except where his physical attendance is strictly necessary for evidence or mediation.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2026